On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:02, Benjamin Caplan<celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > comex wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute >>> and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G. >> >> On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what >> looks like some controversy over the ruleset. Good luck sorting it >> out. > > On the plus side, there doesn't seem to be much actual ambiguity. > (Controversy, yes, but my opinion on the controversial point is that > there's no ambiguity.) The text of the proposal, read literally, is > perfectly clear. It creates some Rules, sets the power of some of them, > and sets the AI of others. > > The resultant game state is a little screwy, sure, but at least we know > what it is. > So....anyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
BobTHJ
